Opinion

It has become a tradition in recent elections for anti-gun Democrats to condescendingly refer to opposition voters as too stupid and bigoted to act in their own best interests.

The latest example of this came from none other than former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), whose Bay Area district covers arguably the most anti-gun jurisdiction in the country. Her remarks had a receptive audience, delivered in a recent debate before the Oxford Union Society in England about whether “populism is a threat to democracy.”  As obnoxious as these spectacles are to ordinary, hardworking Americans, they serve an important purpose by revealing the depths of disgust that anti-gun Democrats feel toward those who stubbornly embrace a traditional view of America. Such Americans should take those sentiments to heart and vote accordingly.

Though the wording of the remarks differs, their message is always the same: We represent the party of progress and the future. Everyone could thrive, if only they would align themselves with us. There are literally no rational arguments against our agenda, so anyone who opposes us is by definition acting out of illegitimate motives, principally hatred for people who are different from them. We might be tempted to pity these wretches, but we cannot allow them to stand in our way.

Needless to say, if you take this view of your political opponents, you cannot tolerate them being armed.

Barack Obama kicked off the trend in April 2008 during his first campaign for the presidency while addressing Democrat party donors at a fundraiser in San Francisco. He was attempting to explain why the party’s economic agenda did not necessarily resonate with voters in heartland America, where industrial jobs had moved overseas, leaving once thriving communities impoverished.  Obama said: “So it’s not surprising then they get bitter and they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them … as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Obama’s comments insulted Americans who believe traditional values like firearm ownership and belief in God are a source of strength and resiliency in hardscrabble communities, not a manifestation of bitterness or resentment toward other people. Even his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton – hardly a champion of the everyman – quickly condemned his remarks as “demeaning,” “elitist,” and “out of touch.”

Yet Clinton resurrected a similar message during her own presidential campaign against Donald Trump.

Like Obama, she was speaking before a group of wealthy party donors, only this time in New York City at an LGBT for Hillary gala in September 2016. “You know, to just be grossly generalistic,” Clinton said, “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” The audience agreed, laughing and clapping enthusiastically. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.”

Clinton continued:

Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket … that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. …

Americans who did not appreciate being characterized by their would-be president as deplorable, hateful, and irredeemable would later help give Trump the most shocking and unexpected victory in American presidential history.

One might imagine the Democrat party would have learned its lesson, but it is apparent these condescending sentiments are so deeply ingrained in its collective thinking that its leadership simply cannot help expressing them, especially when they are before a friendly audience.

Though no longer the Speaker of the House, Pelosi remains an influential and iconic member of her party. Thus, it was perhaps fitting that she would be the one to express, once again, the party’s contempt for ordinary Americans. No doubt it was a bonus for her and the partisan faithful that she got to do it front of a gathering of highfalutin British intellectuals, to boot.

Pelosi began by insisting that American populism is a brand of a “ethno-nationalism” practiced by people who believe in “isolationism” and express “negativity” toward “immigrants” and “people who are different from them.” She allowed, however, that the people who are vulnerable to it may also have legitimate economic concerns but cannot accept the largesse of her party because of their dysfunctional social outlook. Pelosi called these people “pour souls” who are “looking for some answers.” She continued: “We’ve given them to them, but they are blocked by some of their views on guns. They have the three Gs: guns, gays, God (that would be a woman’s right to choose). And the cultural issues cloud some of their reception of an argument that is really in their interests.”

Pelosi, however, may have been putting the chicken before the egg. It is entirely possible that it’s not a love of guns that keep people from embracing her style of globalist politics. Rather, it’s possible working-class Americans struggling to keep their heads above water recognize politicians like Pelosi have no understanding of or concern for people like them. Thus, they embrace self-reliance as a necessity, which includes equipping themselves for the defense of their homes and loved ones, including against the “pour souls” awaiting trial or serving time for violent crimes that members of Pelosi’s party release from custody as a form of charity. Likewise, it might well make more sense for a beleaguered American to appeal to God for help than to a politician whose applause line is to refer that person and others like him as “deplorable” and “irredeemable.” Recent history has, in fact, shown an unprecedented level of diversity among those embracing their Second Amendment rights, including demographics whose support Pelosi and her party take for granted.

Nancy Pelosi, to no surprise, soundly won her debate in Oxford, England. But time will tell whether her party’s message of “listen to your betters, give up your guns, and stop standing in the way of progress” will have the same resonance here in the United States.

One thing is for sure: Americans who disagree will have the opportunity to vote against that outlook this November.

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org